About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through August 2018)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0037 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS CHAPTER 3. FORMER ADJUDICATION TOPIC 2. PERSONAL JUDGMENTS TITLE D. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION (What Claims are Extinguished by Judgment) § 65. Alternative Remedies-Judgment for Defendant Alaska, 2017. Com. (d) quot. in ftn. Client sued law firm, which had obtained a judgment for attorney's fees against client but was later ordered to repay funds that client had paid on the judgment, as well as successor firm and attorney who worked for both firms, alleging that law firm fraudulently transferred its assets to successor firm in order to avoid paying client; law firm filed a counterclaim for quantum meruit. The trial court granted summary judgment for client on law firm's claim. Affirming that portion of the decision, this court held that law firm's original judgment against client for attorney's fees was voidable, rather than void, and therefore operated to bar law firm's subsequent claim for quantum meruit under principles of res judicata. The court noted that, under Restatement of Judgments § 65, where a plaintiff brought an action against a defendant seeking one remedy and judgment was given for the defendant on the merits, the plaintiff was precluded from subsequently maintaining an action seeking to recover an alternative remedy that could have been litigated in the first instance. Merdes & Merdes, P.C. v. Leisnoi, Inc., 410 P.3d 398, 406. TITLE E. EFFECT ON OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION-COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL § 70. Questions of Law C.A.Fed.2018. Com. (a) quot. in sup. Owner of patent for a book holder with removable mounting intended for a mobile structure brought an action against several automobile manufacturers, alleging that the camera holders used on defendants' vehicles were infringing on his patent. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that the district court appropriately followed the claim construction of prior courts for this particular patent, and that, because defendants' devices all had fixed mounts requiring the use of tools for removal, the products fell outside the literal scope of the claims. Quoting Restatement of Judgments § 70, Comment a, to explain stare decisis, the court noted that prior decisions regarding the scope of the claim construction of a patent were final judgments not subject to collateral review and that the application of the doctrine of stare decisis would promote intrajurisdictional uniformity in the treatment of a patent. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135, 1140. CHAPTER 4. EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO PERSONS For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most